Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

What's that term for collective thinking that turns out negatively? Think Tank, no, dang forgot what its called.

dogma wrote:Nah, that's probably not why. At the time there was a single confirmed proliferator, and one significantly more dangerous possible proliferator that would have been of much greater interest.

But did we have a butchered cease fire with that proliferator and a stated policy of regime change with that country?

halonachos wrote:Actually we went into Iraq because of the fact that he had WMD's before.

If you actually do some research you will find that most of the oil fields owned by an outisde country in Iraq are owned by the Chinese who did jack squat.

So if oil really was the major reason we went into Iraq, why would we allow China to buy rights to most of the fields?

We are also proposing a no-fly zone, not a full scale invasion. Those are two completely different things, if you want to compare the concepts of the no-fly zone over Libya and the invasion of Iraq you may also want to compare eating an apple to burying a dead dog.

WMD's go watch more fox news! WMD was the excuse and maybe the final straw, the real reason was an axe to grind with Saddam.

Who cares who owns the oil fields, I havn't seen any subsidies from it. Are you saying that if we help Libya then they give us the oil for free, i don't see that happening. If BP or shell want the oil so bad, then they can foot the bill. Of course they would just pass it back on to us.

Question, how much Libyan oil do you have in your car right now? How much from the middle east? Do the research I think you will be surprised.

Most wars start small. No fly zones are always the first step. Again who pays for the no fly zone?

Andrew1975 wrote:
I don't think the tax payers are happy about the excursions we are on, much less pay for another. Can anyone give any reason why it would be in the US best interest to become active in this theater?

Oil prices will always be a popular reason, though the reality is that the oil never stops flowing for long, if it ever does. The real issue is whether or not that oil is flowing towards the places we want it to do towards (not necessarily us) , or other areas .

Andrew1975 wrote:
Why should the US taxpayer foot the bill to give someone else liberty as ours are being stripped away at home?

What liberty is being stripped away? In our representative system you have a say insofar as there are elections, after that you just get to talk about how you don't like something. Even if you think that denies you your natural liberty, you can't argue that it isn't perfectly in accordance with the social contract implied by the Constitution, and those collected laws derived from it.

Andrew1975 wrote:
I see so many homeless veterans, until we can afford to take care of them the way they deserve, I don't think we have the right to spend money on ANYONE else. Why are we giving financial and military aid to the world when the soldiers that this aid is based on are wandering homeless in droves?

In part its because those soldiers were probably given exactly what their contracts with state implied, meaning that they got what they deserved in the sense that desert follows from agreement.

I can argue that I deserve to be given a billion USD per anum, but if no one agreed to that prior to my statement, then I don't have a very strong case.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

halonachos wrote:What's that term for collective thinking that turns out negatively? Think Tank, no, dang forgot what its called.

Group think.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:
But did we have a butchered cease fire with that proliferator and a stated policy of regime change with that country?

Does it matter? Policies are easily changed, and the cease fire could just as easily have been dealt with by lifting the no-fly zones. Invasion wasn't the only option, it was merely the option that the Bush Administration favored.

There's this sort of zeitgeist that backing out conflicts indicates weakness, which is often true (depending on the observer), but it really doesn't matter when you're already holding all the cards, so to speak. Standing down from Iraq wasn't suddenly going to make people believe that the United States was no longer the most powerful military force on the planet.

dogma wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:
I don't think the tax payers are happy about the excursions we are on, much less pay for another. Can anyone give any reason why it would be in the US best interest to become active in this theater?

Oil prices will always be a popular reason, though the reality is that the oil never stops flowing for long, if it ever does. The real issue is whether or not that oil is flowing towards the places we want it to do towards (not necessarily us) , or other areas .[/code]

Sure but can we say that any of these excursions have helped the price of oil? As far as I can see I haven't seen Saudi Arabia or Iraq giving specific oil discounts to the participants of the gulf wars....have you? I don't mind fighting for oil as long as the US specifically get some benefit. What I don't agree with is the US fighting for the worlds oil or corporations oil. Go get it yourself.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Why should the US taxpayer foot the bill to give someone else liberty as ours are being stripped away at home?

What liberty is being stripped away? In our representative system you have a say insofar as there are elections, after that you just get to talk about how you don't like something. Even if you think that denies you your natural liberty, you can't argue that it isn't perfectly in accordance with the social contract implied by the Constitution, and those collected laws derived from it.

I would say the decline of the middle class is a loss of liberty, stripping unions of their rights to collective bargaining would be stripping people of liberty. All because money is tight and now people want us to spend more to help out Libya? Why? Egypt did it for themselves.

Andrew1975 wrote:
I see so many homeless veterans, until we can afford to take care of them the way they deserve, I don't think we have the right to spend money on ANYONE else. Why are we giving financial and military aid to the world when the soldiers that this aid is based on are wandering homeless in droves?

In part its because those soldiers were probably given exactly what their contracts with state implied, meaning that they got what they deserved in the sense that desert follows from agreement.

I can argue that I deserve to be given a billion USD per anum, but if no one agreed to that prior to my statement, then I don't have a very strong case.

That isn't a real answer to the specific question. The question being why should the US spend money on Libya when our own house is not in order. Again how does US intervention specifically help the US? I'm not against Nato doing it. I don't think it's a bad idea. I just don't see the value in the US taking on another burden as the rest of the world sits back and reaps the rewards. Let the French do it. Hell, I think the US can do it if someone else will finance it and make it worth our while. I don't have a problem with being the global police, I've just never seen the police work for free.

It can also be argued that they (the veterans) should be taken care of, fed and housed, yet veterans benefits are always one of the first costs that are attacked or cut.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Sure but can we say that any of these excursions have helped the price of oil? As far as I can see I haven't seen Saudi Arabia or Iraq giving specific oil discounts to the participants of the gulf wars....have you? I don't mind fighting for oil as long as the US specifically get some benefit. What I don't agree with is the US fighting for the worlds oil or corporations oil. Go get it yourself.

There's two counter-arguments here.

The first is that we aren't pursuing discounts, we're pursuing the status quo, which presently favors us heavily due to the presence of relatively sympathetic governments in the oil producing nations that we purchase crude from.

The second is that we're primarily interested in Middle Eastern oil because that's where everyone else gets their oil from, and if they decide to, say, cut off Europe, the overall supply will be reduced such tha there will be greater competition for the oil we get from other regions (primarily Africa, and South America, as Canada will always favor us due to shipping costs). In this sense we cannot ignore the interests of others, as they directly affect our own; that's the burden that comes with beings the world's largest consumer of petroleum.

Andrew1975 wrote:
I would say the decline of the middle class is a loss of liberty, stripping unions of their rights to collective bargaining would be stripping people of liberty. All because money is tight and now people want us to spend more to help out Libya? Why? Egypt did it for themselves.

Well, Egypt hasn't done anything yet, they got Mubarak to step down sure, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything substantive.

I'm also not sure the middle class has declined in real terms, though they definitely have relative to the upper class, which is not unimportant.

Andrew1975 wrote:
That isn't a real answer to the specific question. The question being why should the US spend money on Libya when our own house is not in order.

Our house isn't in order? How are you defining in order? We're among the most prosperous nations in the world. I could see an argument from the deficit, but I was thrown off by your appeal to emotion based on homeless veterans. From my perspective such people got exactly what they signed on for, a period of service with a degree of compensation and the omnipresent chance of eventual homelessness that everyone faces, which fits my definition of "in order".

If you're arguing that our country should be better, then that's a different line of inquiry.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Again how does US intervention specifically help the US? I'm not against Nato doing it. I don't think it's a bad idea. I just don't see the value in the US taking on another burden as the rest of the world sits back and reaps the rewards. Let the French do it. Hell, I think the US can do it if someone else will finance it and make it worth our while. I don't have a problem with being the global police, I've just never seen the police work for free.

We don't do it for free, the US is at the top of an orchestrated structure of global power from which we draw significant economic benefits. You don't notice it because its been that way for the entirety of your life, and that of nearly everyone else still breathing. Probably the most tangible benefit is that we are able to consume as much petroleum as we do at such a low price relative to the rest of the world.

I'm also not sure what you mean by "let NATO do it". The US is a NATO member state, and would be a party, probably the most significant party, to any military action taken by that body. Any no-fly zone imposed will either be US-only, or driven by NATO/a generic coalition of states.

Andrew1975 wrote:
It can also be argued that they (the veterans) should be taken care of, fed and housed, yet veterans benefits are always one of the first costs that are attacked or cut.

Sure. The group 'veterans', or more accurately "veterans in need of significant aid", is pretty small, and therefore largely irrelevant politically.

I agree that the VA is underfunded, but the reality is that the vast majority of people simply don't care, so it isn't terribly significant to any political argument for or against intervention.

dogma wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:
Sure but can we say that any of these excursions have helped the price of oil? As far as I can see I haven't seen Saudi Arabia or Iraq giving specific oil discounts to the participants of the gulf wars....have you? I don't mind fighting for oil as long as the US specifically get some benefit. What I don't agree with is the US fighting for the worlds oil or corporations oil. Go get it yourself.

There's two counter-arguments here.

The first is that we aren't pursuing discounts, we're pursuing the status quo, which presently favors us heavily due to the presence of relatively sympathetic governments in the oil producing nations that we purchase crude from.

The second is that we're primarily interested in Middle Eastern oil because that's where everyone else gets their oil from, and if they decide to, say, cut off Europe, the overall supply will be reduced such tha there will be greater competition for the oil we get from other regions (primarily Africa, and South America, as Canada will always favor us due to shipping costs). In this sense we cannot ignore the interests of others, as they directly affect our own; that's the burden that comes with beings the world's largest consumer of petroleum.

So your saying that it wouldn't be better for the US to negotiate a reciprocal deals in turn for military support? It's not that I don't understand your point, it's that if we are going to be doing these things I think we should get more out of it. This current situation where we bare the costs for the rest of the world is irresponsible to US citizens.

Andrew1975 wrote:
I would say the decline of the middle class is a loss of liberty, stripping unions of their rights to collective bargaining would be stripping people of liberty. All because money is tight and now people want us to spend more to help out Libya? Why? Egypt did it for themselves.

Well, Egypt hasn't done anything yet, they got Mubarak to step down sure, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything substantive.

I'm also not sure the middle class has declined in real terms, though they definitely have relative to the upper class, which is not unimportant.

The middle class hasn't declined? What part of the US do you live in? What do you do for a living that you haven't felt this? People are losing their houses, they can't afford medical care. We just bailed out the richest 1% of the United States and they are stabbing us in the back and taking peoples houses and throwing them on the street. Not just taking away peoples benefits, but trying to make it illegal for people to fight for them. Meanwhile oil companies are posting record profits, why? Because they can get the American tax payer to finance the protection of their global oil interests.

Mubarak stepping down is pretty substantive, the fact that they did it on their own and without foreign intervention is very impressive. Sure they have a long road ahead, but it surely is substantive!

Andrew1975 wrote:
That isn't a real answer to the specific question. The question being why should the US spend money on Libya when our own house is not in order.

Our house isn't in order? How are you defining in order? We're among the most prosperous nations in the world. I could see an argument from the deficit, but I was thrown off by your appeal to emotion based on homeless veterans. From my perspective such people got exactly what they signed on for, a period of service with a degree of compensation and the omnipresent chance of eventual homelessness that everyone faces, which fits my definition of "in order".

If you're arguing that our country should be better, then that's a different line of inquiry.

I don't think so, if you look at my argument that's exactly what I am saying. Why are we so busy fighting for other peoples rights, liberties, freedoms, ways of life, improvement of their conditions whatever, if we are not improving our own. I'm sick of the rest of the world getting a free ride and complaining about it.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Again how does US intervention specifically help the US? I'm not against Nato doing it. I don't think it's a bad idea. I just don't see the value in the US taking on another burden as the rest of the world sits back and reaps the rewards. Let the French do it. Hell, I think the US can do it if someone else will finance it and make it worth our while. I don't have a problem with being the global police, I've just never seen the police work for free.

We don't do it for free, the US is at the top of an orchestrated structure of global power from which we draw significant economic benefits. You don't notice it because its been that way for the entirety of your life, and that of nearly everyone else still breathing. Probably the most tangible benefit is that we are able to consume as much petroleum as we do at such a low price relative to the rest of the world.

I'm also not sure what you mean by "let NATO do it". The US is a NATO member state, and would be a party, probably the most significant party, to any military action taken by that body. Any no-fly zone imposed will either be US-only, or driven by NATO/a generic coalition of states.

So because we make the world safer in our own interests we are the only one that has to foot the bill and we have to share the benefits with everyone for free,? Please we should take a hint from corporate America. Follow the money. It's cheaper to use an ATM but they still charge you more for it. Anyone who benefits from the intervention should pay for it especially if they need it more than we do.

Let Nato, UN whoever else wants to do it, do it. I wasn't being specific. And if nato wants us to do it alone fine, just finance it for us and pay us for the service or send the French or Italians to do it. Oh wait, they can't, because they don't have the capabilities, because they know the US will do it for free.

Andrew1975 wrote:
It can also be argued that they (the veterans) should be taken care of, fed and housed, yet veterans benefits are always one of the first costs that are attacked or cut.

Sure. The group 'veterans', or more accurately "veterans in need of significant aid", is pretty small, and therefore largely irrelevant politically.

I agree that the VA is underfunded, but the reality is that the vast majority of people simply don't care, so it isn't terribly significant to any political argument for or against intervention.

Andrew1975 wrote:
So your saying that it wouldn't be better for the US to negotiate a reciprocal deals in turn for military support? It's not that I don't understand your point, it's that if we are going to be doing these things I think we should get more out of it. This current situation where we bare the costs for the rest of the world is irresponsible to US citizens.

Basically, yes. If we negotiate a reciprocal deal, one of two things are liable to happen:

1) The nation in question becomes an exclusive supplier, potentially constricting the remainer of the global supply, and encouraging our client state to renege on the agreement.

2) Our preferential deal artificially drives down profits for our client state, and they renege on our agreement in order to make more money on the open market.

In both cases we end up in a situation basically identical to the present one, as our only military recourse would be to take direct control of the client state.

Andrew1975 wrote:
The middle class hasn't declined? What part of the US do you live in? What do you do for a living that you haven't felt this? People are losing their houses, they can't afford medical care.

People haven't been able to afford medical care for a long time, and have been buying homes with fundamentally flawed mortgages. The middle class hasn't declined, its merely realized the truth of the state that its been in for about 20 years.

Andrew1975 wrote:
We just bailed out the richest 1% of the United States and they are stabbing us in the back and taking peoples houses and throwing them on the street.

Not doing so would negate the purpose of the bailout.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Mubarak stepping down is pretty substantive, the fact that they did it on their own and without foreign intervention is very impressive. Sure they have a long road ahead, but it surely is substantive!

I disagree. Regime change almost never has a substantive impact on the actual condition of a nation, especially when the regime being changed is highly institutionalized; as Mubarak's was (stemming from Nasser's original coup).

Andrew1975 wrote:
So because we make the world safer in our own interests we are the only one that has to foot the bill and we have to share the benefits with everyone for free,?

Because of the way international trade works, any benefit that we derive from our military policy will naturally be passed down to our trading partners, and others who are invested in the system. There's not avoiding it. Well, there is a way to avoid it, its called colonialism, and its much more expensive, and unstable, than the current system.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Let Nato, UN whoever else wants to do it, do it. I wasn't being specific. And if nato wants us to do it alone fine, just finance it for us and pay us for the service or send the French or Italians to do it. Oh wait, they can't, because they don't have the capabilities, because they know the US will do it for free.

Why would NATO pay the US? The US contributes to NATO.

Andrew1975 wrote:
While we care about the price of oil, I don't think they care about the global price that other countries are paying.

The price of any given barrel of oil is derived from the global price of oil. The only reason that the average person doesn't care about the global price of oil is that they're ignorant of how it affects the price of gas at the pump.

ChrisWWII wrote:

Big P wrote:Actually the main problem for a no-fly zone is indeed where to base the aircraft and who will provide the short range and long range aerial surveillance aircraft.

Well, you can base them on carrier in the Med, or if Italy will go along with us, base them out of southern Italy/Malta.

I sincerely doubt that NATO will have any problems holding a no fly zone down...I refer you back to the Gulf of Sidra incidents in the 80s. Somehow I doubt the Libyans would have improved much.

Well seeing as we (Britain) decided to mothball all our Harriers, our carriers are rather toothless...

Even basing out of Southern Italy and Malta will require aircraft to have re-fuellers on stand-by just outside Libiyan airspace as aircraft have to be on station to maintain a no-fly zone. This would led to long mission times for pilots if they have to act from European soil. Ideally you would want them based out of a neighbouring country, but I cant see that happening.

I fail to see what Sidra has to do with it.

That saw Reagan deploy the USS Forrestal and Nimitz off the Libyan coast and in reaction to US exercises the Libiyans bombed up and set some aircraft out to 'attack' the US fleet. On August 19th, one o fthe Libyan SU-22s popped off an AA-2 at an F-14 and the two eagles, 102 and 107, splashed their Libiyan opposition with Sidewinders in retailation.

They did not enforce a no-fly zone, or indeed operate for an extended period.

I dont see the US being willing to deploy two carriers to the area in order to maintain a no-fly zone. This will have to be a NATO led and executed mission, backed by UN sanction, and it will be difficult to conduct due to the range and distance from suitable operational airfields.

I'm American, so when I say 'we' I am usually referring to the Unisted States. It would be idea to base them in Algeria or Tunisia, but obviously we can't do that, so we'll have to settle for the next best thing. If there's one thin Western air forces have down to a T, its how to keep an aircraft up in the air for a long time. Remember, we wouldn't need to patrol ALL of LIbya, just they key parts where loyalist air bases are located. One aircraft carrier should be able to do that.

I refer back to Gulf of Sidra simply because it's a good example of the combat ability of the Libyan air force. They're not going to be able to resist a no fly zone.

Well seeing as we (Britain) decided to mothball all our Harriers, our carriers are rather toothless...

I guess 'mothballed' is the important word. That implies that they can be 'un-mothballed' should we require them.

Albatross wrote:

Well seeing as we (Britain) decided to mothball all our Harriers, our carriers are rather toothless...

I guess 'mothballed' is the important word. That implies that they can be 'un-mothballed' should we require them.

Not if they have been 'mothballed' in the manner of the Nimrod....

dogma wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:
So your saying that it wouldn't be better for the US to negotiate a reciprocal deals in turn for military support? It's not that I don't understand your point, it's that if we are going to be doing these things I think we should get more out of it. This current situation where we bare the costs for the rest of the world is irresponsible to US citizens.

Basically, yes. If we negotiate a reciprocal deal, one of two things are liable to happen:

1) The nation in question becomes an exclusive supplier, potentially constricting the remainer of the global supply, and encouraging our client state to renege on the agreement.

2) Our preferential deal artificially drives down profits for our client state, and they renege on our agreement in order to make more money on the open market.

In both cases we end up in a situation basically identical to the present one, as our only military recourse would be to take direct control of the client state.

You act like there is no precedent for this. The US Controlled the Panama canal for quite some time, because we built it. I see no reason why the same type of agreement could not be reached with oil fields. Exclusivity doesn't have to be part of the deal. The amount of profit available from oil is huge, any of the oil producing countries could sell to a country for a discount if they wanted especially if that country is responsible for their ability to pump oil in the first place.

Andrew1975 wrote:
The middle class hasn't declined? What part of the US do you live in? What do you do for a living that you haven't felt this? People are losing their houses, they can't afford medical care.

People haven't been able to afford medical care for a long time, and have been buying homes with fundamentally flawed mortgages. The middle class hasn't declined, its merely realized the truth of the state that its been in for about 20 years.

Maybe the reason for this is if you take the military spending and wasteful humanitarian aid we provide around the world and reinvest that in the US we wouldn't be in such a f'ed up situation.

Andrew1975 wrote:
We just bailed out the richest 1% of the United States and they are stabbing us in the back and taking peoples houses and throwing them on the street.

Not doing so would negate the purpose of the bailout.

nonsense, utter nonsense. This is the Dogma I am used to. Those banks and corporations owe the US taxpayer.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Mubarak stepping down is pretty substantive, the fact that they did it on their own and without foreign intervention is very impressive. Sure they have a long road ahead, but it surely is substantive!

I disagree. Regime change almost never has a substantive impact on the actual condition of a nation, especially when the regime being changed is highly institutionalized; as Mubarak's was (stemming from Nasser's original coup).

I guess it depends on what your idea of substantive change is. You probably don't think the American revolution was a substantive change. And no I don't want to hear your reason why it wasn't. I'm beginning to remember why I don't argue with you. Someone should be paying you to derail threads.

Andrew1975 wrote:
So because we make the world safer in our own interests we are the only one that has to foot the bill and we have to share the benefits with everyone for free,?

Because of the way international trade works, any benefit that we derive from our military policy will naturally be passed down to our trading partners, and others who are invested in the system. There's not avoiding it. Well, there is a way to avoid it, its called colonialism, and its much more expensive, and unstable, than the current system.

Wrong, just wrong. Cheaper oil would not benefit the US and colonialism is the only way to get it. Wrong

Andrew1975 wrote:
Let Nato, UN whoever else wants to do it, do it. I wasn't being specific. And if nato wants us to do it alone fine, just finance it for us and pay us for the service or send the French or Italians to do it. Oh wait, they can't, because they don't have the capabilities, because they know the US will do it for free.

Why would NATO pay the US? The US contributes to NATO.

So do all it's members but I don't see them pulling their weight. We should match whatever the rest of the members are providing and no more unless the rest of the members want to foot that bill. I don't care if its Nato or the UN. If you want a police force then you have to pay for it,

Andrew1975 wrote:
While we care about the price of oil, I don't think they care about the global price that other countries are paying.

The price of any given barrel of oil is derived from the global price of oil. The only reason that the average person doesn't care about the global price of oil is that they're ignorant of how it affects the price of gas at the pump.

Not true, not true at all. I just don't care what they have to pay. I care what I have to pay and if you want the US to secure your oil then we should not have to pay what everyone else does. If the US is responsible for your ability to pump oil, then you should be obligated to provide some reciprocal benefit to the US specifically. If not I don't really see a reason for our intervention. Other countries have the abilities to intervene and apply pressure let them do it. The US is actually in a better position than most to withstand spikes in oil prices, if it came down to a waiting game Europe would have to act before we did. I personally would love to see Italy, France and Germany try to handle these situations on their own.

filbert wrote:

Albatross wrote:

Well seeing as we (Britain) decided to mothball all our Harriers, our carriers are rather toothless...

I guess 'mothballed' is the important word. That implies that they can be 'un-mothballed' should we require them.

Not if they have been 'mothballed' in the manner of the Nimrod....

nope, theyve been fully serviced and are fully functional before they were put in storage

there was news here locally about our government looking to get some of those harriers but yeah that didnt go through

filbert wrote:

Albatross wrote:

Well seeing as we (Britain) decided to mothball all our Harriers, our carriers are rather toothless...

I guess 'mothballed' is the important word. That implies that they can be 'un-mothballed' should we require them.

Not if they have been 'mothballed' in the manner of the Nimrod....

Well, no. They were 'scrapped'. That pissed me off a bit actually - what a fething waste! Couldn't they have just well, mothballed them? Or at least sold them?

They were brand new and cost a fortune!

Albatross wrote:Well, no. They were 'scrapped'. That pissed me off a bit actually - what a fething waste! Couldn't they have just well, mothballed them? Or at least sold them?

They were brand new and cost a fortune!

Well, it was probably organised by someone who was a nimrod (and not the good kind that can fly).

really? lol i guess thats why the ph deal didnt go through

dang and with no replacements ready too

that was smart

SilverMK2 wrote:

Albatross wrote:Well, no. They were 'scrapped'. That pissed me off a bit actually - what a fething waste! Couldn't they have just well, mothballed them? Or at least sold them?

They were brand new and cost a fortune!

Well, it was probably organised by someone who was a nimrod (and not the good kind that can fly).

Not sure anyone would have wanted to buy them... From what I heard from sources it seems they were pretty much obselete before they rolled off the factory line...

As for the Harriers, the RAF fleet is scrapped.

The Sea Harriers just have the GR9s left (the GR7As got scrapped) and those are most certainly living on borrowed time. It looks like we may well get a new aircraft carrier on stream but not have any fixed wing to deploy fromit...

As ChrisWWII states a large US Carrier could certainly enforce the no-fly zone on its own, whether there is the political will power to do so remains to be seen. It might be that a NATO enforced zone will be more politically acceptable to have in the region... Which brings its own set of problems.

Mind you, a NATO-enforced zone probably amounts to the same thing realistically even if it's different politically.

Melissia wrote:Mind you, a NATO-enforced zone probably amounts to the same thing realistically even if it's different politically.

Im guessing thats the whole point...

Andrew1975 wrote:
You act like there is no precedent for this. The US Controlled the Panama canal for quite some time, because we built it. I see no reason why the same type of agreement could not be reached with oil fields. Exclusivity doesn't have to be part of the deal. The amount of profit available from oil is huge, any of the oil producing countries could sell to a country for a discount if they wanted especially if that country is responsible for their ability to pump oil in the first place.

You're missing the point. There is no reason for any oil producer to sell to anyone at a reduced price, ever. The demand for oil far outstrips supply, and any agreement that we might make with a foreign state, exclusive or not (as I already illustrated), can easily be reneged on; and in fact there is a very large incentive to do so.

Regardless, as I've said many times already, the US already has a privileged status when it comes to its ability to import oil, and this is largely the result of its military policy with respect to oil producing states and the role it plays in enabling US corporations to do business in those states (among others).

Of course, you'll probably just say, again, that we don't benefit enough, and then go back to paying 2 USD per gallon less, on average, than the rest of the developed world.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Maybe the reason for this is if you take the military spending and wasteful humanitarian aid we provide around the world and reinvest that in the US we wouldn't be in such a f'ed up situation.

You know how humanitarian aid works, right? Basically the government buys goods from domestic manufacturers and ships it to foreign states. Cash aid is incredibly rare. Foreign aid is far more beneficial to US producers than to most foreign states.

As far as the military budget, I think it should be cut by 30%.

Andrew1975 wrote:
nonsense, utter nonsense. This is the Dogma I am used to. Those banks and corporations owe the US taxpayer.

The purpose of the bailout was to stabilize the balance sheets of certain banks without drawing explicit attention to those that were fully solvent (hence the comprehensive application of funds). If you don't allow banks to foreclose on homes, and so mitigate their losses, then you've basically just postponed the inevitable collapse of those institutions. No amount of bailout money is going to change the basic reality of our economic system.

Regardless of whether or not you feel the banks owe the taxpayer, what was done could not have been done any other way (except perhaps less the bailout money, though that's been debated so many times here as to be simple repetition at this point).

Andrew1975 wrote:
I guess it depends on what your idea of substantive change is. You probably don't think the American revolution was a substantive change. And no I don't want to hear your reason why it wasn't. I'm beginning to remember why I don't argue with you. Someone should be paying you to derail threads.

The American Revolution was substantive change because it involved the independence of a colony. The ousting of Mubarak is not a substantive change because it involved only the removal of one man at the head of an institutionally repressive system; ie. not a cult of personality.

I'm not sure why you think my commentary on Mubarak is derailing the thread when you brought Mubarak up in the first place.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Wrong, just wrong. Cheaper oil would not benefit the US and colonialism is the only way to get it. Wrong

Are you seriously claiming that cheaper oil is not beneficial to the United States? Really? I mean, our petroleum industry is hugely important, but nowhere near as important as the infrastructural lifeblood of the economy.

And yes, colonialism is the only way to do what you're describing. Even in the case of the panama canal that you cited earlier, the United States was forced to maintain a permanent military cordon around the asset. In any other situation the conversation goes like this:

US: We'll give you military support for cheaper oil.
Oil Producer: Ok
US: Why aren't you selling us cheaper oil?
OP: We don't want to.
US But our agreement!
OP: You'll provide us the same deal under market prices, or we'll remove all your extraction companies from out territory, seize their equipment, and bring in foreign workers. We'll also stop exporting to you.
US: Fine, because we have no choice other than putting troops on the ground to enforce the original agreement (colonialism).

Andrew1975 wrote:
So do all it's members but I don't see them pulling their weight. We should match whatever the rest of the members are providing and no more unless the rest of the members want to foot that bill. I don't care if its Nato or the UN. If you want a police force then you have to pay for it.

Match in what sense? As a proportion of our military budget to theirs? As a proportion of our overall force to theirs? A direct, one-to-one match?

You're entire claim is needlessly vague, and indicates to me that you're not really interested in this issue aside from some personal umbrage which, quite honestly, isn't particularly interesting to me. I don't care to argue with people that are going to stand on base of emotion.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Not true, not true at all. I just don't care what they have to pay.

Yes, because you don't seem to understand how the global price of oil impacts what the US has to pay. You're just reiterating the point I made, and reinforcing the impression I've taken from your position, as explained immediately above.

Looks like Libya has agreed to a cease fire without the US raising a finger. Hmmm. Maybe we don't have to be the world police. It's shocking, it's like the world can handle it's own problems sometimes.

Are you saying that the USA will not be involved in enforcement of a no-fly zone? Because that would be incorrect. The USA was also heavily involved in the negotiations.

Are you saying that the USA will not be involved in enforcement of a no-fly zone? Because that would be incorrect. The USA was also heavily involved in the negotiations.

"Britain and France, along with two unnamed Arab countries, were preparing to enforce the no-fly zone, said a European diplomat, adding that it could take "between 24 and 48 hours" for the operation to begin.

At least two Arab nations also agreed to participate, according to the European diplomat and a U.S. official, and discussions were ongoing with other governments in the region.

They declined, however, to identify the Arab countries that would take part. One was believed to be the United Arab Emirates, the federation of pro-West oil-producing sheikhdoms in the Persian Gulf.

The U.S. also will participate, but the extent of the American role was still being decided by President Barack Obama, according to the U.S. official who asked not to be further identified in order to talk about the issue."


It hasn't happened yet. The US has not really even made any strategic moves besides some shuffling of currently deployed forces. It has hardly taken a real threatening posture. The US has stated that if it does participate the forces will have be mostly Arab consisting of forces from Jordan, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. I don't know how possible that really is, but the members of the Arab league do have powerful air forces at their disposal. It (the US) certainly won't or shouldn't be THE major player as this is a UN operation and not a US led one.

I think this has been handled really well by Obama of whom I am not a fan. What incentive is there for the US to ever do these things alone, we are not the only country in the world that has interests there.

Andrew1975 wrote:I think this has been handled really well by Obama of whom I am not a fan. What incentive is there for the US to ever do these things alone, we are not the only country in the world that has interests there.

Obama has stated very clearly that the US will not deploy ground troops. They are participating in the enforcement of the no-fly zone, but I don't know where you are getting the idea that the US is 'doing it alone'.

EDIT: And to suggest as much is really quite insulting to all the foreign troops that have fought and died alongside US forces, which wasn't always in a UN approved action.

Obama has stated very clearly that the US will not deploy ground troops. They are participating in the enforcement of the no-fly zone, but I don't know where you are getting the idea that the US is 'doing it alone'.

EDIT: And to suggest as much is really quite insulting to all the foreign troops that have fought and died alongside US forces, which wasn't always in a UN approved action.

Is predominantly alone a better phrase for you? No offense, but the US usually does the heavy lifting and shoulders almost all the blame and cost. I don't think that can be argued. Of course our allies help and I won't dishonor it by saying that it is negligible the backing we get is appreciated and some of our allies help much more than others. However, I rarely see people burning Australian, French, or British flags and I don't see these countries spending nearly the amount on military adventures and bribery aid that the US does. When all other participants contributions combined does not equal even 50% of what the US contribution is, I'm sorry but it's not an equal distribution.

Andrew1975 wrote:

It hasn't happened yet. The US has not really even made any strategic moves besides some shuffling of currently deployed forces. It has hardly taken a real threatening posture. The US has stated that if it does participate the forces will have be mostly Arab consisting of forces from Jordan, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. I don't know how possible that really is, but the members of the Arab league do have powerful air forces at their disposal. It (the US) certainly won't or shouldn't be THE major player as this is a UN operation and not a US led one.

I would call deploying an aircraft carrier to the Mediterannean a fairly significant strategic move. No doubt the US won't be the primary enforcer of this, which I'm guessing is part of Obama's plan, which seems to be going quite well, but the US should definitely at least be involved with the operation.

I would call deploying an aircraft carrier to the Mediterannean a fairly significant strategic move. No doubt the US won't be the primary enforcer of this, which I'm guessing is part of Obama's plan, which seems to be going quite well, but the US should definitely at least be involved with the operation.

No doubt, if it happens and our allies think it is necessary I'm all for pitching in because we should support our allies. But doing the heavy lifting.....meh. I still don't really believe much is gonna change in Libya and if the Arabs want a no fly zone or military action, they can accomplish it themselves. But we should support our allies who have supported us in the past. I never said we shouldn't.

As far a the carrier fleet. Was moving that a real expenditure is that really a posture! It can be said it was in the neighborhood. I mean it was already in the Mediterranean, it's just closer to Libya now.

Andrew1975 wrote:

Obama has stated very clearly that the US will not deploy ground troops. They are participating in the enforcement of the no-fly zone, but I don't know where you are getting the idea that the US is 'doing it alone'.

EDIT: And to suggest as much is really quite insulting to all the foreign troops that have fought and died alongside US forces, which wasn't always in a UN approved action.

Is predominantly alone a better phrase for you? No offense, but the US usually does the heavy lifting and shoulders almost all the blame and cost. I don't think that can be argued. Of course our allies help and I won't say that it is negligible the backing we get is appreciated. However, I rarely see people burning Australian, French, or British flags and I don't see these countries spending nearly the amount on military adventures and bribery aid that the US does. When all other participants contributions combined does not equal even 50% of what the US contribution is, I'm sorry but it's not an equal distribution.

Which, to be fair, is largly because the US has a ridiculously huge DND Budget. Your armed forces even sponsor several professional sports, an act that seems, for the most part, to be exclusive -to- the US. I think another reason that the US Military is so widely hated is because they get involved, even if both sides of a conflict don't necessarily want them there. Rushing in somewhere uninvited, and with guns blazing, isn't the best way to make friends on an international level. Meanwhile most other NATO nations tend to stick more to a peacekeeping role, they go where they're needed/wanted, when asked to do so. Very rarely will they just assert control over another country via military means. That's just the way of it though - the larger a nation's military, the more agressive that nation is going to be. And people might not see the good that sometimes comes from it, because it's outweighed by the bad aspects of such actions.

The US has just been too heavy handed since the Cold War. In WWI the US was largely a background player until they joined in 1917 - one year before the end of the war. Before then, they simply supplied the Allies with extra equipment. And again, it took them 3 years to enter the second world war (It officially started in 1939 when the Nazis invaded Poland), but again, they supplied the Allies with equipment due to Britain's industry being wiped out. The US was much-loved back then, because they weren't invading everyone that had oil and/or gave the President the stink-eye.

I guess all things considered, Americans should be proud of Obama for showing restraint and handling this as per UN and Rebel wishes. They asked for support in all forms, short of putting foreign troops in Libya. So far, that's what the US and NATO are doing. You Yanks want people to stop burning your flags? Win the battle for Hearts and Minds? Then this is an excellent example of how to get there. If these rebels take down Ghadafi, then they're going to remember the US that supported their nation, rather than the US that invaded it. Maybe it's not the ROFLSTOMP that Americans are used to, but that doesn't mean that it's a sign of weakness. Instead, I would say it's an indication that the man on top is using his head instead of his fists to solve a problem, and it's about bloody time.

Andrew1975 wrote: However, I rarely see people burning Australian, French, or British flags...

Burning French and British flags are pretty popular in some places mainly those where (shock/horror) these nations have seriously mucked up the local area or done something offensive (like banning the burqua). People generally think Aussies are just plain awesome though.

When all other participants contributions combined does not equal even 50% of what the US contribution is, I'm sorry but it's not an equal distribution.

For what it's worth Pakistan was the largest contributor of armed forces to the UN in 2008(or 9?). Regardless, when you're comparing the invasion force that originates from a country of +300 million as compared to, say, Australia which is scraping 20 million of course the larger country is going to take up a larger portion of the force. Equal distribution would dictate that Australia should only send 1 soldier for every 15 the US sends. I don't see why Australia would be interested in Libya at all in a political sense, but I do support the humanitarian call for aid (Australia has a less than satisfactory track-record when it comes to our own region, but you could also blame some of that on the US).

You have a problem with viewing things as The World vs America (and our allies, but they don't really do anything).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

metallifan wrote:Maybe it's not the ROFLSTOMP that Americans are used to...

Best summary of foeign policy. Ever.